Zitek Tony, Baydoun Jamie, Yepez Salvador, Forred Wesley, Slattery David E
University of Nevada School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Reno, Nevada; University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, Department of Emergency Medicine, Las Vegas, Nevada.
University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, Department of Emergency Medicine, Las Vegas, Nevada.
West J Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;17(2):201-8. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2016.1.29335. Epub 2016 Mar 2.
Two-point compression ultrasound is purportedly a simple and accurate means to diagnose proximal lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), but the pitfalls of this technique have not been fully elucidated. The objective of this study is to determine the accuracy of emergency medicine resident-performed two-point compression ultrasound, and to determine what technical errors are commonly made by novice ultrasonographers using this technique.
This was a prospective diagnostic test assessment of a convenience sample of adult emergency department (ED) patients suspected of having a lower extremity DVT. After brief training on the technique, residents performed two-point compression ultrasounds on enrolled patients. Subsequently a radiology department ultrasound was performed and used as the gold standard. Residents were instructed to save videos of their ultrasounds for technical analysis.
Overall, 288 two-point compression ultrasound studies were performed. There were 28 cases that were deemed to be positive for DVT by radiology ultrasound. Among these 28, 16 were identified by the residents with two-point compression. Among the 260 cases deemed to be negative for DVT by radiology ultrasound, 10 were thought to be positive by the residents using two-point compression. This led to a sensitivity of 57.1% (95% CI [38.8-75.5]) and a specificity of 96.1% (95% CI [93.8-98.5]) for resident-performed two-point compression ultrasound. This corresponds to a positive predictive value of 61.5% (95% CI [42.8-80.2]) and a negative predictive value of 95.4% (95% CI [92.9-98.0]). The positive likelihood ratio is 14.9 (95% CI [7.5-29.5]) and the negative likelihood ratio is 0.45 (95% CI [0.29-0.68]). Video analysis revealed that in four cases the resident did not identify a DVT because the thrombus was isolated to the superior femoral vein (SFV), which is not evaluated by two-point compression. Moreover, the video analysis revealed that the most common mistake made by the residents was inadequate visualization of the popliteal vein.
Two-point compression ultrasound does not identify isolated SFV thrombi, which reduces its sensitivity. Moreover, this technique may be more difficult than previously reported, in part because novice ultrasonographers have difficulty properly assessing the popliteal vein.
两点压迫式超声据称是诊断下肢近端深静脉血栓形成(DVT)的一种简单且准确的方法,但该技术的缺陷尚未完全阐明。本研究的目的是确定急诊科住院医师进行的两点压迫式超声的准确性,并确定使用该技术的新手超声检查人员常见的技术错误。
这是一项对疑似下肢DVT的成年急诊科(ED)患者便利样本进行的前瞻性诊断试验评估。在对该技术进行简短培训后,住院医师对入选患者进行两点压迫式超声检查。随后进行放射科超声检查并将其用作金标准。指导住院医师保存其超声检查视频以进行技术分析。
总体而言,共进行了288项两点压迫式超声检查。放射科超声检查判定为DVT阳性的有28例。在这28例中,住院医师通过两点压迫式超声识别出16例。在放射科超声检查判定为DVT阴性的260例中,住院医师使用两点压迫式超声认为有10例为阳性。这使得住院医师进行的两点压迫式超声的敏感性为57.1%(95%可信区间[38.8 - 75.5]),特异性为96.1%(95%可信区间[93.8 - 98.5])。这对应着阳性预测值为61.5%(95%可信区间[42.8 - 80.2]),阴性预测值为95.4%(95%可信区间[92.9 - 98.0])。阳性似然比为14.9(95%可信区间[7.5 - 29.5]),阴性似然比为0.45(95%可信区间[0.29 - 0.68])。视频分析显示,在4例中住院医师未识别出DVT,原因是血栓仅局限于股浅静脉(SFV),而两点压迫式超声未对其进行评估。此外,视频分析显示住院医师最常见的错误是腘静脉可视化不足。
两点压迫式超声无法识别孤立的SFV血栓,这降低了其敏感性。此外,该技术可能比先前报道的更难,部分原因是新手超声检查人员在正确评估腘静脉方面存在困难。